thank you for your attention admin,
i already tried Heroku and Cloudways before, heroku allowed socket application because it run nodejs as default also need exactly deployment step to be in role, i deployed i fresh copy on my work in (http://asaylaravueadmin.herokuapp.com/), but i think heroku has a file structure that not allow storing file like users attachments, also not give a database must be out, also i tried Cloudways but my subscribe expired, i tried to deploy laravel in website hosting service need to make public_hml as short link with laravel public folder and with work great, the ssh needed for composer requirement and artisan commands, if i have a a chance i can do it.
thank you
You could try Glitch. They don’t purge your files daily like Heroku does.
2 Likes
Just FYI, SSH access only does not mean you can change the document root of your website. The document root of a website needs to be changed in the webserver configuration. While changing that configuration is usually done through SSH, SSH access does not automatically give you the option to change server configuration. SSH access on any web hosting service is very limited. If you want full control over server configuration, a VPS is probably the best choice for you.
As for the files, Heroku’s “12 factor” design means that you need to use object storage like Amazon S3 to store any files, because local storage is hard to keep safe, fast and scalable. Since you use Laravel, you already have access to it’s Storage system, which can make working with object storage just as easy as working with local files. Source: the InfinityFree client area also does that.
3 Likes
So can you or can’t you think about asking iFastNet for SSH. You could try something like 2FreeHosting web-based SSH. I’m not sure how that works (I’ll have to look into it), but it sounds like it could work.
Even if they did ask for it, it still all but impossible that they would add it, considering it’s not even on their cheapest paid plan. Why would they give the free accounts a tool they wouldn’t have if they upgraded?
4 Likes
I can ask, but I already know the answer. Business Hosting has it, Premium Hosting doesn’t. Like @anon54841129 said, it wouldn’t make sense if free hosting had more features than premium hosting. After all, premium hosting is supposed to be an upgrade, and it’s not an upgrade if you have to hand in features.
I know roughly how it works. Or worked. 2FreeHosting used the same YouHosting platform as we (as Grendel Hosting) did. So please stop calling it 2FreeHosting SSH, because they did not build or design this system, and weren’t the only ones to offer it.
The YouHosting web console implemented a small set of commands. Whenever you would enter a command, it would parse the command in it’s own code and check the arguments, options and flags being sent to it. If it understood the command, it would rebuild it in it’s own structure, execute it and write the output to the web console.
This was very limited because:
- You could only use the commands which were implemented in the console. You could download a WordPress zip file and extract it, but you could not remove the archive afterwards, because the
rmcommand was not implemented. - You could not execute other scripts. So no PHP commands or bash scripts.
- For the commands they did implement, you could only use the options and arguments the console supported. Does the command line program have certain arguments you want to use but does the web console parser not support or understand these arguments? Tough luck, can’t do that.
- The web console was REPL only. So no interactive commands and programs.
I don’t know exactly what you want to do that you want to have shell access, but I’m fairly certain that the YouHosting web console does not provide you with the power to do what you need to do.
Finally, it should be noted that the current Hostinger.com platform is based on the platform originally built for YouHosting. So the web console code has been in that code base, but Hostinger chose to remove it. I don’t know when or why they did this, but they did. Maybe it was too cumbersome to maintain, maybe people did not use it, or maybe it posed too big of a security risk (keep in mind that this tool was developed by a company which had not one but two major data breaches in the last few years).
In any case, I don’t see why I should push to reproduce a feature which I know from experience was bad and has been removed already.
6 Likes
Well, I didn’t know that that web-based shell was that bad of an interface. I take what I said back. When I find a better interface to suggest, I will suggest it. In the meantime, I will just be waiting for a response that probably will help in this topic furthermore.
THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!
I would like to thank you for implementing SSL for the websites. I can’t thank you enough.
It has been a feature I’ve been wanting for a while now.
1 Like
hmm… this makes the topic more interesting. @Admin i thought you have admin access to the panel? or at least reseller access which can allow/disallow features to the user?
so is that all features can only go through Ifastnet that you have absolute no control of?
1 Like
That depends on which “panel” you’re referring to.
I have limited access to the VistaPanel control panel. I have reseller level access to it, but the only official customization option is the ability to add advertisements to the panel. Fortunately, these ad blocks allow arbitrary code so I can do some manipulations in the panel. But enabling and disabling features is not a feature of VistaPanel.
The client area on the other hand is completely custom built, and is exclusive to InfinityFree. While for many features, it’s restricted by what iFastNet provides, but that doesn’t mean it can’t offer exclusive features. Right now, the free SSL is the best example of an exclusive feature like that.
In the past we also had an affiliate program (discontinued), different website builder (also discontinued) and different file manager (iFastNet adopted that software too). And I have some ideas for new features for the panel, which are primarily creative applications of existing possibilities.
4 Likes
thats great to hear! well… even with / without SSH for me is ok but i still like infinityfree as the whole thing and willing to see more from infinityfree in the future! 
1 Like
Composer only ssh access should be implemented in my opinion.
Yeah, you should try that. Implementing composer only ssh access like what @shreejalmaharjan suggested we do.
Still isn’t possible for InfinityFree to do, only iFastNet can.
2 Likes
Well, they can request ifastnet as they can give suggestions cause they are resellers.
ifastnet do have SSH on their business plan… if infinityfree got SSH that means it will have to relate to ifastnet needs to change their business plan too! i mean admin could request but dont think the rate will be high!
see admin’s post
3 Likes
You can conclude, that InfinityFree will not be getting SSH anytime soon. If you really want SSH, you will need to pay for it. It‘s not possible to have everything for free.
2 Likes
Please do keep in mind that Composer also supports custom scripting hooks, which would need to be disabled or contained in some way as well. Just Composer is not as safe as you may believe.
Not necessarily. I’ve been considering to build an external git deploy system. So you can push your Git repository to an InfinityFree service, the service collects the files and Composer dependencies, and pushes the files over FTP to your hosting account.
Portability with cPanel is a bit of an obstacle, but it’s not impossible.
7 Likes
I thought you said only ifast net can implement those features
Only iFastNet can implement SSH access, because it must be run directly on the servers. Git deploys and Composer could be run outside the hosting servers by using FTP, which means it’s possible to implement this independently.
The thing is that the feature request was originally “we want SSH access”, which is not possible. Then it was watered down to “we want SSH access for Composer”, which is also not possible. But if you narrow this down to “we want Composer”, this is possible.
5 Likes